Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1

Samples

A YouTube comment by DrDjOffical I copy & pasted from said: "

• A1 samples "Africa" by Toto.[8]
• A2 samples "Only Over You" by Fleetwood Mac.[9]
• A3 samples "Too Little Too Late" by Jojo and "Castles in the Sky" by Ian Van Dahl.[10]
• A4 samples "Morphine" by Michael Jackson.[11]
• A5 samples "Everybody's Been Burned" by The Byrds.[12]
• A6 samples "Lonely" by Janet Jackson.[13]
• A7 samples "The Four Horsemen" by Aphrodite's Child.[14]
• A8 samples "My Love Is Waiting" by Marvin Gaye and "Hearsay" by Alexander O'Neal.[15]
• B1 samples "Don't Give Up" by Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush and "Sweet Little Mystery" by John Martyn. [16]
• B2 samples "Gypsy" by Fleetwood Mac and "Love T.K.O." performed by Teddy Pendergrass. [17]
• B3 samples "Baker Street" by Gerry Rafferty and "Separate Lives" by Phil Collins and Marilyn Martin. [18]
• B4 samples "The Lady in Red" by Chris de Burgh. [19]
• B5 samples "Me Against the World" by 2Pac. [20]
• B6 samples "These Dreams" by Heart. [21]
• B7 samples "Woman in Chains" by Tears for Fears, "Letter from Spain" by Electric Light Orchestra, and "Catch and Don't Look Back" by Womack & Womack. [22]

Thanks wikipedia"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unN7QvSWSTo

If Whosampled.com isn't a usable source, I doubt that some YouTube commenter who apparently sourced Wikipedia is a usable source. Micro (Talk) 04:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Espngeek (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a source we CAN use for the article? It seems like the tracklisting is pointless without the sample list.--D1119 (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Working on finding sources for each track

Just leaving it here so I/anyone can work on it when they have some time. Here's what I have confirmed so far:--D1119 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

== Track listing ==
{{tracklisting
|headline=Side one
|extra_column=Samples
|all_writing=
|title1=A1
|title2=A2
|title3=A3
|title4=A4
|title5=A5
|title6=A6
|title7=A7
|title8=A8
|length1=2:44
|length2=4:02
|length3=6:32
|length4=2:05
|length5=3:04
|length6=3:00
|length7=2:28
|length8=5:13
|extra1="[[Africa (Toto song)|Africa]]" by [[Toto (band)|Toto]]<ref name="Spectrum">{{cite web |title=Chuck Person: Chuck Person’s Eccojams Vol. 1 - Spectrum Culture |url=https://spectrumculture.com/2016/12/04/chuck-person-chuck-persons-eccojams-vol-1/ |website=Spectrum Culture |publisher=Spectrum Culture |accessdate=18 July 2020}}</ref>
|extra2="Only Over You" by [[Fleetwood Mac]]
|extra3="[[Too Little Too Late (JoJo song)|Too Little Too Late]]" by [[JoJo (singer)|JoJo]]<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bowe |first1=Miles |title=The Essential… Oneohtrix Point Never |url=https://www.factmag.com/2015/11/28/the-essential-oneohtrix-point-never/7/ |website=FACT Magazine |accessdate=18 July 2020}}</ref><br>"[[Castles in the Sky (song)|Castles in the Sky]]" by [[Ian Van Dahl]]
|extra4="Morphine" by [[Michael Jackson]]
|extra5="Everybody's Been Burned" by [[The Byrds]]
|extra6="Lonely" by [[Janet Jackson]]
|extra7="[[The Four Horsemen (Aphrodite's Child song)|The Four Horsemen]]" by [[Aphrodite's Child]]<ref name="Spectrum" />
|extra8="[[My Love is Waiting]]" by [[Marvin Gaye]]<br>"[[Hearsay (song)|Hearsay]]" by [[Alexander O'Neal]]
}}

{{tracklisting
|headline=Side two
|extra_column=Samples
|all_writing=
|title1=B1
|title2=B2
|title3=B3
|title4=B4
|title5=B5
|title6=B6
|title7=B7
|length1=4:54
|length2=4:56
|length3=4:35
|length4=2:19
|length5=3:04
|length6=2:33
|length7=4:27
|extra1=
|extra2="[[Gypsy (Fleetwood Mac song)|Gypsy]]" by Fleetwood Mac<ref name="Spectrum" />
|extra3=
|extra4="[[The Lady in Red (Chris de Burgh song)|The Lady in Red]]" by [[Chris de Burgh]]<ref name="Spectrum" />
|extra5="[[Walk On By (song)#Isaac Hayes version (1969)|Walk On By]]" by [[Isaac Hayes]]<br>"Me Against the World" by [[Tupac]]<ref name="Spectrum" />
|extra6=
|extra7=
}}

@D1119: See source code now. Wetrorave please don't 29 March 2022 01:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 03:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Since this article has been sitting in the GAN queue for 10 months, and I owe one after getting The Exorcist to GA, and I usually try to pick the one that's been waiting the longest to be reviewed, I am choosing this one.

I will be printing out a hard copy to review, then doing a copy edit based on that (no GA nominator, IMO, should have their article failed over easily fixable copy issues), and then coming back with what I think. I hope, as usual, to have some results on this within a week (you've waited far too long). Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: Aha, I see you had the same issue I did with The Exorcist ... an earlier review being abandoned. I will take into account that review as well, but not till after I'm done with my hard-copy review. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Review

OK. I'm done with my copyedit, which I can favorably report took about 300 bytes off the article, which tells me there wasn't much fat in it (a bit wordy at some points, but I've seen a lot worse)—a good sign.

I always start these off by saying what I liked about the article, and for this one the answer is, what's not to like? It definitely seems to have benefited from the previous review process. It told me some things I didn't know that I found interesting (I have it mind to check this music out online when I can find the time) and didn't bore me even though I knew very little about the artist or this subgenre of electronic music.

From the previous review I completely defer to the redoubtable and respectable RoySmith on the sourcing question about the Reddit AMAs. That eliminates a big issue. So for promotion I only have two relatively minor notes for the nominator to address:

• The {{fact}} on endnote a. I don't think it should be too hard to add some of the many "later sources" in the article to this one just to support the later use of Lopatin's spelling.

• "It was eventually removed, likely because of copyright." It took me a while to be able to check the cited source, and indeed it says that, but it uses the language "presumably because of copyright". First, that's a little less committal than "likely", to the point that I'd consider the latter term to be slightly OR-ish and prefer the former in our article.

  But more importantly, the totally speculative nature of this claim even in the source gives me pause. The writer of the source does not strike me as being in a position to know, or credibly speculate, as to the reason for the removal. And there's the AMAs and the other interviews with Lopatin ... has he himself ever been asked the reason for the removal? If he has been let's put it in; as long as we don't know, I'd prefer we not speculate about why in our voice even if it's sourced. It's not really a matter of great relevance to the subject of the article.

OK, that's it. You have the usual week to address these.

One other thing not essential for promotion, but which I'm still curious about: What's the explanation for calling them "Eccojams"? It seems like it has to do with the cover art, but in the absence of an actual statement to that effect it's OR for us to say so. If Lopatin hasn't said so, we should keep an ear out for that if he does.

Lastly, if this gets promoted I see some possibilities for a DYK nomination. Would you be OK with that?

 On hold Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Thanks, I have addressed your notes. Lazman321 (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Pass And so it passes Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that one critic described Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1 as a repetitive album that he wanted to listen to repeatedly? Source: "On my first listen to this, I wanted to loop the whole track over and over again. Not many repetition-based albums can create this longing for more." Sputnik Music; August 2, 2016
  • ALT1: ... that despite Daniel Lopatin's electronic album Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1 having a limited 2010 release on cassette tapes, it became a foundational album for the vaporwave genre? Source: "Before the Little Chubby robot went rogue, before the Pope rode around the US in a Fiat, and before we saw porn stars without makeup, Daniel Lopatin (a.k.a. Oneohtrix Point Never) released a cassette called Chuck Person’s Eccojams Vol. 1, way back in 2010 ... The tape eventually led Lopatin to release Replica while also helping to lay the aesthetic groundwork for vaporwave, the style of music we wouldn’t shut up about back in 2012." "Daniel Lopatin releases remastered version of Chuck Person’s Eccojams Vol. 1", Mr P, Tiny Mixtapes; November 22, 2016
  • ALT2: ... that original 2010 cassette tapes of Daniel Lopatin's Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1, a foundational album of the vaporwave genre, now sell for as much as US$400 on Discogs? Source: Per previous hook: "Chuck Person’s Eccojams Vol. 1 is now considered a seminal release, with used tapes being sold on Discogs at a median cost of roughly $250 (it sold as high as $400)""
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Jiang Ge

Improved to Good Article status by Lazman321 (talk). Nominated by Daniel Case (talk) at 03:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good article. ALT1 strikes me as the strongest hook, though I wish it was less wordy/crisper. gobonobo ^{+ c} 12:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)